Transcript

Antony Funnell: And finally this week, 'Don't be evil'.

That's the unofficial corporate motto for the enormous media conglomerate, Google. It's a catch line that for a while at least made many internet users feel favourably toward the giant international search-engine company.

Google wore the white hat, while Microsoft donned the black one.

Then came the news that Google was willing to do deals with oppressive regimes in order to expand its reach. Like the one that resides in Beijing.

Acceptable behaviour or ethical sellout? Well, we'll let others judge. But the disillusionment many feel with Google highlights the problem of transparency online. How do you really know whether the websites you use or visit behave in a way which accords with your moral view of the world?

Well recently in Melbourne, a group of concerned individuals got together to talk about the possibility of designing an ethical labeling system for media. A sort of consumer guide.

Ellie Rennie organised that symposium. And she's a research fellow at Swinburne University's Institute for Social Research.

Ellie Rennie: The need that we're addressing is actually visibility. In the new media environment there are lots of websites, which allow us to participate and provide access and allow communities to publish their content on them. But we don't actually know easily what kind of organisations they may be. For instance, YouTube is a privately-owned company and MySpace is owned by Newscorp. At the same time, there are a number of organisations out there which are grassroots community-based organisations, and they are dedicated to ensuring that when we go to their site, our privacy will not be infringed, that the source code will remain open, that we will have a chance perhaps even to participate in the governance of that organisataion. So it's kind of getting behind that façade of participation and access, and thinking, Well, what kind of media environment do I want to be participating in? And how can I find it?

Antony Funnell: So at the heart of this is really that issue of trust, and also giving consumers a chance to get information about the sites that they intend to deal with, or they'd like to deal with?

Ellie Rennie: Exactly. If you think of Fair Trade coffee for example, we know that behind Fair Trade coffee there's a very elaborate and trustworthy system of workers' rights, of ethical farming. So this is similar, in that we need the label on that media in order to determine what kind of media we might be using in the same way that we buy Fair Trade coffee, because we believe in what it stands for.

Antony Funnell: So if you're looking at setting up that kind of system where you've got almost a stamp of integrity that you could put on a website or indeed, say, a community broadcasting program or organisation, how do you define what you mean by ethical? Do you have to prescribe a certain checklist of values by which that organisation or that website needs to comply?

Ellie Rennie: I think so. I think one of the important things to remember here is that we're talking about distribution and not content. There have been many proposals for a web rating scheme, for instance, so that we know if we are going to a blog whether that person has done their research, or whether they're just making it up. That is not what we're talking about here.

What we're talking about is the organisations that allow us to access information and what they do with our data if we do visit them. So the principles behind that could be very similar to the way that community radio and television stations are currently licensed. For instance, they would probably be not-for-profit organisations. They would allow for access, and they'd probably allow for some kind of participation in the governance, not just at the content level.

Antony Funnell: And what about the practicalities of setting up this type of system, particularly in terms of making sure that people are honest, that they may have good intentions at the start, but they might change their motivation over time. How do you ensure that that accountability, that transparency, remains in place?

Ellie Rennie: For a system like this to work, it needs to be taken up at the grassroots level. Initially when this concept arose, I was thinking it would be something like a membership body, for instance, the Community Broadcasting Association: by becoming a member of that organisation, you would therefore get this accreditation and permission to use that label. At the symposium on Friday there was a fair amount of resistance to anything that might be a central authority, particularly the new media groups who were there proposed that instead what we need is a self-selecting brand, a bit like the Creative Commons label, that would be accountable through peer review, so if someone was acting against the terms of that label, then others would pick up on it, not necessarily report it to an agency but that there would be enough pressure upon that group to step down or take the label off.

Antony Funnell: And what was your feeling about that? Because that sort of peer review process, that's already very well established in terms of the way the web deals with issues, isn't it?

Ellie Rennie: It is very well established. I personally come from a broadcast background and I'm used to the licensing system. I think that this is a really interesting idea and if it means I suppose less administration, less bureaucracy, less control, then it's a great idea. I do hope it can work, but as I said, that really depends upon the community itself.

Antony Funnell: Now I know this is a proposal that's just in its embryonic stage, but are there difficulties that you see in trying to please the various groups involved, particularly where you've got geographic boundaries, cultural boundaries between different people and different parts of the world?

Ellie Rennie: It's going to be a massive talent in that respect. Just looking at Australia, there's already been a lot of valid points raised around -- for instance, how bloggers would fit into this kind of scheme, because some of them are very dedicated and ethical producers, and they're also distributing their own content, but they're not necessarily not-for-profit organisations.

So there was some resistance to the idea in that it may be reducing diversity. I like to think that all it's doing is providing a navigation system and it's not about gatekeeping or exclusion. I think if this got bigger than Australia, we may have issues where those kind of criteria, such as not-for-profit status or community governance, don't even apply. How that would be implemented becomes a huge challenge, yes.